I return, periodically, to this 2023 @nickcave letter, in which he gets many things right (though one I'd identify as wrong.) To synthesize crudely, he argues that AI can create facsimiles of art and will be increasingly able in doing so, but the thing that makes "art" art is the authentic human experience that underlies its conception. We value art because of the human-ness that went into it. Superficially identical outputs can (and will continue to) command very different value and have very different impact based upon the human (vs inhuman) provenance of their creation. The thing that I believe he gets wrong: the idea that the human input will be de-valued as AI expand-multiplies. Human taste, intuition, drive, creation--all the idiosyncratic byproducts of each individual's lived life and experience--will only become more dear as technological tools springboard off those curated intuitions. We may not care if the individual line of code was artisanally crafted, but the spark that motivated the product or service or artistic output--that most of all--will matter more deeply than ever. Practically this means that proof of human provenance will become increasingly important (and I believe this will hold true across contexts, not just in art.) Within the business context, the most valuable marketing dollar will be that spent, not catering to the incremental AI agent, but to the human determining which agents to spin up and what their spend-leeway is. Within the political context, it's clearly more valuable to influence someone who has an underlying vote in a given polity, than to try to influence their AI-projected mouthpieces. Within the social context, your core biological function is to procreate. Spinning up additional agents (or spending time with an AI girlfriend, no matter how winsome and solicitous) won't scratch that itch. And back to the artistic context: the entire point of art is it conveys something intrinsic about the underlying human creator's experience, and the particularness--the corner-case-ness--the specificity and not-creatablenes-by-anyone-else-ness of the message, is exactly what makes it so universally resonant. It chimes with the human universe because there is a deep humanity in it all the way down to its analogue bones. Within all future contexts I would expect humanity to remain essential--as root, catalyst and ongoing prime mover. (The entire Nick Cave letter is worth reading, not least to cast back to the halcyon days when people were passing around parlor-trick esque LLM outputs rather than feeding them directly into business critical products and code)